Just_A_Guy

On the one hand, yeah, you don't want to have a grudge festering--but there's still the question of why your husband stalled on the issue when he knew it was so important to you. The answer, of course, is none of my business--my point is that a bit of marriage counseling might be in order. Maybe a visit to your bishop would make a good starting point.

What Ninjamormon said. Be you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't aspire to develop good qualities as per the counsel of our leaders and the whisperings of the Spirit. You should. But do it because that's the person you want to be (and who the Lord wants you to be), not because you think it's what someone else likes. If you love to giggle--giggle. If you love computer games, play computer games. If you're into sports, play sports. If you like bolder makeup (within reasonable limits), go for it. Being yourself is the best way to guarantee that when a guy comes calling at your door, he'll like you for who you are and not for who he thought you were.

Well, they'll use the idea of agency as a rhetorical device to try to get what they want from their parents or other authority figures. But I don't think many of them honestly believe that God doesn't mind when they break His commandments. More often, what's really going on there is a lack of testimony of either God's existence generally or the particular commandment they wish to disobey. Touché. But I'm not convinced that "free will" really encompasses the dual nature of agency either--at least, not to the layman. We use lots of terms that are unique to Mormondom, and to some degree investigators and converts are just going to have to learn the lingo.

Maxel has given me a lot to think about. The answer that I was going to give is pretty much the same as what I wrote here earlier today: God just wants us to be different.

Just did; but I'm a little slow on the uptake and so voted all four of them (I think a couple of the answers aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). Well, the legal/scriptural definition seems to be a conjunction of choice and accountability. If you're saying that Mormons tend to associate "agency" primarily with the "choice" element, I'd agree with you. If you're raising concerns that Mormons--collectively or individually, to any serious degree--are improperly marginalizing the notion of accountability, I think I'd have to disagree at present (based solely on my own anecdotal experience). We might not contextualize the concept as well as we ought, but we certainly still teach it.

I would say a temporal law, but built on a foundation of eternal principles. But, see D&C 29:34-35: Reconcile that as you will. It was real wine. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are full of stories of people getting drunk on "wine". And there are numerous contemporary accounts of Joseph Smith drinking bona fide wine. He had apparently read D&C 27:5-14, paying particular attention to verse 14.

Perhaps not, but I think Black's Law Dictionary comes pretty close: Remember, the scripture teaches that men are agents "unto themselves" (D&C 58:28). So, in the legal sense, we are both agents--enjoying the capacity to act--and principals--accountable for those actions. I once read an interesting piece (drawing heavily on 2 Nephi 2, IIRC) suggesting that without opposition there is no real agency, and without law there is no real opposition. By this theory, Satan's plan to deprive us of agency was actually a plan whereby we would be sent to earth, but without any law to govern us (and, incidentally, without any need for a "savior" who would actually suffer for the sins of mankind, since there could be no sin in the first place. No wonder he was so willing to volunteer for the job!). I'm particularly fond of this idea because it turns the common liberal meme of "you're trying to control me! That's Satan's plan!!!" on its head.

My overall impression (and I should qualify that by saying I haven't read much FARMS stuff in the last two or three years) is that the recent stuff is consistently pretty good, but what you see in the 80s and 90s is kind of hit-or-miss.

I think there was probably a health aspect to parts of the Law of Moses, but I'm unconvinced that that was the entire purpose of the law. It seems to me that from Abraham onwards, the people that would become Israel was by design a nation of outsiders--a peculiar people, as the saying goes. They were repeatedly placed in a variety of highly visible situations (first in the highest circles of the government of Egypt, then as a populous slave community, then finally ensconced in the Levant at the crossroads of three major empires and a number of smaller principalities)--but they were always aware that they were somehow different from the masses. It gave Israel a sense of community and purpose that has lasted through three millennia and several outright attempts at extermination. As I understand it, several of the substances we eschew because of the Word of Wisdom aren't really that much more harmful than other substances about which the WoW says nothing. I don't know that the Lord was as concerned about the impact of the king of Babylon's meat on Shadrach, Mesach, and Abed-Nego's physical bodies as He was concerned about their opportunity and willingness to be an example of the believers to a nation that had not embraced Him. Similarly, I'm not sure that the Lord is as interested in what a daily cup of Joe will do to my body, as He is interested in how I take advantage of the subtle missionary opportunities that my abstinence from that substance may provide me among my co-workers and friends.

I'll have to remember that one when my wife complains because I've just blown $30,000 on a new boat.

Ruthiechan is correct in that rebaptism entails a "restoration of blessings", but even if that restoration did include a temple marriage it could not overrule the agency (ability to choose one's own actions) of another person. In other words, your fiancee's ex can't re-ingratiate herself into your fiancee's eternal life unless he allows her to. If he's still holding out hopes of spending eternity with his ex, then frankly you two probably have a lot more pressing issues to resolve than speculating about who will be with whom in the resurrection.

I think most people would agree that "pork" can be generally defined as unnecessary spending by the government which benefits limited groups of people. Given that this spending wasn't included in last year's (or any year's) budget, I think you can make a decent argument for labeling the whole thing "pork". If you protest that the stimulus is essential to economic recovery, the whole thing would boil down to hyper-technical claims about Keynesian economics and a bunch of terms I couldn't begin to comprehend. Suffice it to say, there's a lot of smart folks who don't think it will work. I, for one, don't particularly look forward to the idea of the Church's starting a civil war. Assuming you buy into some variant of the White Horse prophecy, our commission is to save the Union. Not to destroy it.

Sakuragirl, as things stabilize for you and depending on how much was in your 401(k) and your savings, it might be worth your time to consult a lawyer knowledgeable in family and/or contract law. You might be able to find someone who would take your case on a contingency basis, which would mean you wouldn't have to pay much/any money up front.

Not a gospel "expert" by any stretch of the imagination, but my thoughts (and I'm sorry I don't have references for these): No idea. Maybe the indigenous peoples had some kind of sexually-transmitted disease which they had passed on to their children, who in turn could not be permitted to grow up and intermingle with the Israelites. Maybe there was the danger that the kids might harbor resentment towards the Israelites in the long run. Perhaps so that they realized the gravity of what they had been asked to do, and didn't begin to take pleasure in it? They might try, but their conduct is governed by whatever laws the Lord has laid down and (IMHO) the degree to which the living are exercising control over their own lives. It strikes me that there's a quote out there to the effect that people whose bodies are possessed by spirits have basically allowed it to happen because of the way they've lived their lives up to that point. Probably Hemidakota can look it up for you. My understanding is that the spirit world--for everyone--is here on earth; just a different "state of being" if you will. I see no reason why all spirits wouldn't be aware of each other, but I suspect they would tend to self-select in their associations the same way people do. I don't think we know, other than that there are bounds set by the Lord beyond which they cannot go. There's a quote from Brigham Young to the effect that the devil can do whatever his knowledge enables him to do, except where he is prevented by a higher power (either God himself, or a worthy priesthood holder) (which begs the question of whether a righteous priesthood-holding-but-disembodied spirit could use the priesthood). Cleon Skousen gave such a talk--I think it was called "The Real Meaning of the Atonement" or something like that (the version I read was in Portuguese, and it was several years ago). The crux of the talk was that there's some kind of subatomic particle (Skousen dubs it "intelligence") that is actually capable of exercising free will, and it obeys Christ only by virtue of His Atonement and the fact that He is perfectly obedient to the laws that govern Him. It's certainly not authoritative or doctrinal, but I think it makes a lot of sense.

I pretty much agree with BenRaines on all counts. In my experience, no one would have even dared suggest having a "pageant" with scantily-clad females prancing around the cultural hall. Just because the "meat" on display is of the masculine rather than the feminine type, really doesn't change anything. The whole thing just seems creepy. But, yes, it'd have been better to talk to the bishop one-on-one.

Minister of Magic. There's no other way a member of Wright's audience could listen to his sermons for decades and still not realize that the guy's a raving lunatic.

Penguin, I feel for you, and I wish there were some way I could promise your parents will be totally cool about it. But I'm not there, and I don't know. What I do know through personal experience (as has been testified by others) is that it's not going to get easier. Right now it's tempting to think, "I'll just repent when I'm out of the house so my parents won't know". But then you're at college, and you don't want your LDS roommate to know (or don't want to set a bad example for your non-LDS roommate) (or you're at a church college and are afraid you'll get reported to honor code or something), so you put it off to graduation. But then you go on a mission--and what would people say if you got sent home? You get married--what's your spouse going to think? So you convince yourself that maybe you can just keep it inside forever--but there's that nagging doubt that just maybe everything's not quite right with the Lord; maybe the promises made in the temple won't happen. That doubt will consume you. There is no better time than now. Parents naturally don't like to see their kids foul up; but if yours are worth their salt they'll be proud that you took the initiative to resolve the issue (at least, once the shock wears off). And if not--even so, better your parents than your spouse. Good luck.

To answer the original question: Joseph Smith proposed to--and even married--several women who were concurrently married to other men. That is documented fact--see, e.g., Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness, which is drawn from the accounts left by the women involved. We just don't know the theological reason for this. For me, it boils down to the old admonition to not let what you don't know deprive you of what you do know. FWIW, Joseph Smith also proposed to Orson Pratt's wife. Pratt left the church for a time over the issue, but ultimately returned. And Vilate Kimball's story is, I believe, common knowledge within the Church.

Indeed, Maxel. There's a reason Elder Holland (speaking before he became an apostle) deemed it a sacrament.

Nathan, as a child of a Catholic mother, weren't you baptized as a baby? Why are they insisting you be baptized again? Also, have you talked to your local church leadership about the Perpetual Education Fund?

Think of the relationships established by the temple sealing as a triangle, with two points being the parties to marriage and the third point being the Lord. The lines represent a covenant between any two parties. So, there is a bond not only between the husband and the wife, but between each party individually and the Lord. In your fiancee's case, the bond between husband and wife is already broken--it was broken when one or both culpable parties failed to keep the covenants he/she had made in the temple. However, subject to repentance, the bond between each party and the Lord still exists. That is why the Church makes it so hard to get a "temple divorce". In the eyes of the Lord, your fiancee and his ex are already divorced (or will be, when the legal procedures are done); they need not worry about being "stuck" together in the Resurrection. What the "cancellation of sealings" does is to dissolve the parties' bonds with the Lord. (Not all bonds--it's not like they get excommunicated or anything--but the parties are no longer entitled to some specific blessings promised to them in the temple.) It's not advisable to do sever that bond with the Lord until/unless one party or the other is ready to make a new covenant (i.e. has found a new partner, and wishes to marry again in the Temple).

[Warning: Speculation coming.] My thought is that not all exalted beings are "exalted" to the same degree. The key to exaltation is eternal increase--the faster one increases, the more exalted one is; the greater is one's power and glory (but not knowledge, as per Elder McConkie's "Seven Deadly Heresies"). Brigham Young taught that no one else will build your kingdom for you. Exalted beings who had children in mortality will necessarily have an advantage over those who did not, or those who had fewer children--at least at the outset. But it doesn't mean anyone's "damned". It just means that one person's kingdom might grow faster than another person's kingdom, because of the choices that each person made. [/speculation]

Joseph Smith was a Boy Scout?

Brigham Young didn't think so.

I agree that Sunstone has traditionally been a pretty unproductive refuge for Mormon malcontents, but I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of Dialogue or the MHA. Two other MHA Books of the Year were Dallin H. Oaks' Carthage Conspiracy (1979) and Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling (2006). Bushman's wife is on the board of directors of Dialogue, one of whose founding members was Elder Oaks. Maxel's advice to "give the Lord equal time" is sound, but you needn't think that all non-LDS-approved sources of history are inherently dangerous to your testimony. You just need to keep your sense of perspective.